This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Is it?

Corporations represent the people who own them.

The people who own them are protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the corporations cannot be denied Freedom of Speech, because to deny corporations that freedom is to deny the living people who own them that freedom.

It's not hard, it's not confusing. It's freedom.

A corporation is an institution that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

Thus it doesn't represent the people who owns them as a person but only represents their business.

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by misterman

I thought corporations weren't persons and can't speak - how can a corporation use anything? It's the PEOPLE using the corporation's money to speak.

You need to decide if corporations are deserving of personhood or not. If so then corporate actions are those of the corporation and the employees/owners/shareholders are shielded from the actions of the corporation.
If however you conclude that corporations are not deserving of personhood then actions taken by them are those of the party/parties responsible for the corporations decisions. The guy in the mail room doesn't get to decide where and how corporate funds are used. So which is it?

And let's not be disingenuous anymore about the "people" who work at these corporations. Only certain of a corporations executives and share holders (in a public company) decide how and where corporate funds are dispersed.

Re: Corporate Personhood

I meant that corporate funds are the funds of those who control them. Although they are also, albeit not directly accessible, the funds of its employees.

I'm sorry but your premise about the corporate funds is plainly wrong. You did give it an effort though. They are not directly nor indirectly accessible by all of the corporations employees. I'm sorry that you are wrong but you are.

I would assume that those funds are to be used to maintain and improve the company, as such would be in the best interests of the members, investors and employees of the company (in most cases).

And it would be reasonable to assume as much.

If part of that maintenance and improvement involves supporting political candidates who advocate policies which (in the mind of the corporate entities involved) will improve the environment which the company exists in, then it seems only reasonable that the persons who control the company funds would assign some of those funds to such a purpose.

Such activities would be in the best interests of:

The persons who control the funds of the corporation, because they want their company to prosper, as that will both reflect well on them and (probably) increase their salary/bonus.

Those persons who have invested in the company and/or own the company, because it will increase the value of their investment and/or company.

Those persons who work for the company, in whatever capacity, because it will provide opportunity for advancement in the company (through expansion of the company), and/or increased pay/salary (for the same reason).

OK, now the question is: Who does the economy serve? The People or Corporations? Do we simply allow corporations to do anything they want to improve their profitability regardless of the damage it might do to "The People" either directly (i.e. poisoning a community's water supply) or indirectly (i.e. causing banking failures)?
Obviously we do not just simply allow corporations "to get away with" damages but only if caught. We rarely do anything proactively to PREVENT corporations from doing damage. This is because the corporate lobby controls our legislature. We only attempt to fix damages by legislative fingers in the dam. Those fingers are of course directed by corporate interest and in all cases that I am aware of, end up opening other doors or the "fixes" are short lived and overturned or "refixed" to open a door by the congress at some later point when less people are scrutinizing.

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar

Is it?

Corporations represent the people who own them.

The people who own them are protected under the First Amendment, ergo, the corporations cannot be denied Freedom of Speech, because to deny corporations that freedom is to deny the living people who own them that freedom.

It's not hard, it's not confusing. It's freedom.

The key word is the owners.
Why even bother with the Corporations having free speech if as you note, the people who own them already have their right protected? What you are exposing is that the owners, who already have their rights protected, should be allowed to use their company as another vehicle for free speech. Do I understand you correctly?

Re: Corporate Personhood

Originally Posted by NoJingoLingo

You need to decide if corporations are deserving of personhood or not.

No I don't.

If so then corporate actions are those of the corporation and the employees/owners/shareholders are shielded from the actions of the corporation.
If however you conclude that corporations are not deserving of personhood then actions taken by them are those of the party/parties responsible for the corporations decisions. The guy in the mail room doesn't get to decide where and how corporate funds are used. So which is it?

Doesn't matter one bit when it comes to freedom of speech. The first amendment protects speech, regardless of its source.

And let's not be disingenuous anymore about the "people" who work at these corporations. Only certain of a corporations executives and share holders (in a public company) decide how and where corporate funds are dispersed.

Re: Corporate Personhood

- religious groups like churches (the organizations, not the buildings) have no right to religious freedom?

- the government could legally seize, without compensation, all of a corporation's property any time it wants?

Please answer.

The rights are for people... as individuals... NOT political parties, not corporations.

Religious freedom is not being discussed here. Quit trying to side-step the point.

The constitution was designed to protect the individual American citizen from government persuction. It was not intended to protect big business and political groups from the consequcnes of their personal attacks.

The right has always had difficulty accepting the fact that their big business friends are only protected as individuals. The right cannot accept that their businesses are NOT entitled to 1st Amendment protections outside of that which is provided to each individual employee.

Of course, anytime the right cannot buy off a politican or create a law that favors them and their SIGs, the right gets bitchy and whiney.